3 ms·
The biological shortcomings inherent to the species are inherent in scientists and engineers. Your argument to the contrary is reductionist to the point of abs
by soc14lism00 6y ago
The biological shortcomings inherent to the species are inherent in scientists and engineers.
Your argument to the contrary is reductionist to the point of absurdity. Emotionally minimizing their set of privileges to “their iPhones are the same!” Insanity. Great we all get the same iPhone. I’d rather have their healthcare. But let them push us into multimedia gadgetry production, not hospital building, by shaping the information we see through the gadgets!
Economics of keeping people healthy is costlier to them than keeping us sedate and distracted from our literal health through the high of new disposable stuff.
Capacity for blind faith is a feature of our biology. If you’re going to peddle science in engineering systems, you can’t wave away the science of biology and say “well in social contexts core physics are arbitrarily different.”
Engineers are carpenters with circuits (disclaimer: hardware engineer with 20yrs in the industry). They haven’t re-invented physics that can’t be re-invented. They’re librarians of knowledge, not creators of unique physical truth in fundamental ways.
And to address the social system aspects, the historical record is clear and easily Googled. You’ve done nothing to challenge the arguments I’ve studied over decades. Social media hot takes hardly wave away decades of measured science and public government files.
More blind faith serving as personal validation.
- austinheap 6y agoIs there an alternative system you’re a fan of?
- soc14lism00 6y agoUsername says it all Ultimately, not acquiescing to social narratives alone is all I’m advocating for. Narratives like society should avoid limits on the amount social capital we award people (money isn’t a thing outside human societies, having a lot of it isn’t scientific evidence of exceptionalism) on giant promises like forever life, nuclear cars, living on Mars, and whatever Google believes it’ll find sorting all the noise instead of measuring purposesfully. If you want a free market of ideas and information, enabling a capital monopoly in exchange for a throwaway phone seems a bit nuts rather than putting that into local services to support a majority discussing and researching these ideas away from outdated notions some minority, due to story mode thinking, should profit. Why aren’t the technological inventions good enough for everyone? Why the historical vault of gold to go with if the phone alone should be good enough for us? A phone that took millions of minds not just the minds of the extra rich. To design build and even make a market for. There’s exactly no accepted evidence in physics that economic success has anything to do with biological superiority and a whole lot of math suggesting it’s to do with time, place, shape of information available. In fact decades and millions spent on trying to math out who brings value to an org has resulted in math so Byzantine its impenetrable.
- dang 6y agoSpecial purpose accounts and, especially, using HN primarily for ideological battle, are not allowed here. That leads to repetitive, tedious discussions, and usually flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html